Smt. Thiriseni Shyamala vs. The State of Telangana and 3 others

PDF · subscribers
WP/12786/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01016795202214 March 2022Bench: LALITHA KANNEGANTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the NFAC to decide the petitioner's rectification applications, both dated April 21, 2022, within eight weeks. The court noted that the petitioner had filed two appeals, one against the assessment order and another against the penalty order. The petitioner opted for the DTVSV Scheme for the penalty appeal and sought withdrawal of only that appeal. However, the NFAC disposed of both appeals. The court left the rights and contentions of all parties open, indicating that the merits of the disposal of the quantum appeal would be decided through the rectification process. The operative direction was to decide the pending rectification applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aquarius Fincap and Credits Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 18, 2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner had two appeals pending before the CIT(A), NFAC: one against an assessment order dated December 29, 2018, under Section 143 read with Section 147, and another against a penalty order dated June 14, 2019, under Section 271(1)(b). The petitioner opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and filed forms to settle only the penalty appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner sought withdrawal of only the penalty appeal. However, the NFAC disposed of both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal, stating the petitioner had opted to settle the case under the DTVSV Act, which the petitioner claims is incorrect regarding the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the NFAC erred in disposing of the petitioner's quantum appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the petitioner had only opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the penalty appeal and had sought withdrawal of only the penalty appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that they had filed two separate appeals, one for the assessment order (quantum appeal) and one for the penalty order. They opted for the DTVSV Scheme only for the penalty appeal and subsequently requested the withdrawal of only the penalty appeal. The NFAC wrongly disposed of the quantum appeal by assuming it was also settled under the DTVSV Act. The petitioner filed rectification applications which have not been addressed. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel stated they had no instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143,Section 147,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP(C) 12786/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~S-35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12786/2022 & CM APPL.38906/2022 AQUARIUS FINCAP AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Advocate. versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 5th September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18th May, 2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Petitioner also seeks the restoration of the quantum appeal before the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC]. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner had filed two appeals before the CIT(A), Delhi-I for the year under consideration, one against the assessment order dated 29th December, 2018 passed under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act and the other against the penalty order dated 14th June, 2019 passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003489

WP(C) 12786/2022 Page 2 of 3 Act. He states that during the pendency of both the appeals, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act, 2020) was enacted by the legislature. He further states that the Petitioner opted for the scheme, and filed Forms 1 & 2 on 11th December, 2020 seeking to settle only the penalty appeal pending before the NFAC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a Form-3 dated 23rd December, 2020 was issued to the Petitioner, pursuant to which the Petitioner filed a letter dated 22nd February, 2021 with Respondent No.1, for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the penalty order dated 14th June, 2019 only. He states that the request for such withdrawal was acknowledged and the Petitioner availed the benefit of the DTVSV Act, 2020 with respect to the penalty appeal. He, however, states that Respondent No.1 without appreciating the facts and submissions filed by the Petitioner also disposed of the quantum appeal vide order dated 18th May, 2022 on the ground that the petitioner had opted to settle the case under the DTVSV Act, when, in fact, that was not the case. He states that the petitioner only availed the benefit of the DTVSV Act against the appeal filed qua the penalty order and the request for withdrawal of appeal was only limited to the appeal against the penalty order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner has filed two rectification applications seeking rectification of the impugned order wrongfully disposing of the quantum appeal of the Petitioner. He, however, states that the petitioner has not received any communication regarding the same. 5. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents- revenue, accepts notice. He states that he has no instructions. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003489

WP(C) 12786/2022 Page 3 of 3 6. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, the present writ petition along with application stands disposed of with a direction to the NFAC to decide the petitioner’s rectification applications both dated 21st April, 2022, annexed as Annexure P-1 to the present writ petition, in accordance with law within eight weeks. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2022 TS This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003489

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →